Both could be called a study of reality. But via very different methods.

    • Blurntout@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’m back and have decided it’s apples to oranges

      I appreciate the point that having the mental acuity to observe one’s self in a moment as they are without judgement is akin to observing “reality”

      Where the comparison falls down for me lies in how I define reality and science though

      Reality - shared truth

      Science - peer reviewed facts

      Individuals observations during meditation cannot be verified full stop an argument could be made that without abstraction and outside observation the could be studied and quantified.

      Thank you for your thoughts I mean no offence and look forward to any perspective that compels you to believe otherwise:)

      • SenK@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Op’s analogy isn’t about verifying meditation experiences as scientific facts, but about how both Zen and science are rigorous, disciplined studies of reality, just through different lenses. Zen isn’t about abstraction or quantification; it’s about direct, unmediated experience (and “peer review” happens with sangha and the teacher). The comparison is poetic, not literal. It’s kinda highlighting that both paths require clarity, humility, and a willingness to see things as they are, not as we wish them to be.